[cc-community] freesound > questions from the creator(s)
ml at creativecommons.org
Wed Apr 6 16:26:59 EDT 2005
Bram de Jong - MTG wrote:
> 1. how does one show a website which uses two different licenses? I used
> the <License rdf...> tags to show the *website* as certain content, but
> the audio files have a different license. How can I -easily- reflect
> this using the RFD tags?
The easiest thing to do would be to publish RDF that corresponds the the
license used for the sound files (instead of the web pages) and add a
type=Audio assertion (from http://creativecommons.org/license/ set
format to Audio to get that metadata). Presumably the audio content is
what will be of primary interest to searchers.
Or, as someone else has mentioned, publish metadata for each audio file
> 2. for attribution; how do I supply the users with a way to attribute. A
> user might download 200 samples from 200 users. Does he then have to
> attribube the online 200 "persona's" (there's no 'actual' names on
> freesound)? How should this be done? Should I supply the user with
> auto-generated forms or something which 'attribute'? How do others solve
> this problem with mixed content (wav/mp3/ogg/aiff => adding 'metadata'
> to these 4 file-types is hard)?
Attribution should probably go on the web page for a track, not embedded
metadata. The embedded metadata should simply contain a reference to
this web page. If you follow the non-web guidelines above this will be
For attribution on the track web page see for example
If users are going to use samples from lots of songs you might consider
a shopping cart/bookmark type interface where users can build up a list
of stuff they're interested in sampling then checkoff the ones they used
when submitting a track. I'm sure there are many other approaches you
could take, it's a UI issue.
> 3. What about the sampling-clause in sampling+? The clause makes sense
> for sites that supply songs, but... The problem with a site with samples
> is that "the work" *is* the sample. I.e. you use the work in a whole and
> then reuse it in another work (CC or not) mixed with other works... A
> bit confusing if you look at the 'sampling+' license. Can someone
IANAL, can't give legal advice, etc., but my personal thought is that
the sampling license perhaps doesn't make much sense for licensing
samples, as presumably the intention is that people can take the whole
sample and use it in a new work without further cutting the sample up or
otherwise transforming it.
> 4. about the double-C logo. I've been told I can't use it w/out consent
> from CreativeCommons. I tried contacting the email addresses on the site
> 3 times - with no result what so ever. I'm a bit annoyed by this but
> perhaps someone can help me here?
http://creativecommons.org/policies isn't clear about (cc) as opposed to
the full "(cc) creative commons" logo, but to be safe you should only
use (cc) to link to creativecommons.org, not as part of another logo.
More information about the cc-community